It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Kano
Yeah a carrier would be nice, but largely irrelevant for the typical role of the R.A.N, border control and assisting in peacekeeping operations in the pacific. Where a carrier really would be too much.
It may have been possible to make use of a Carrier during the invasion of Iraq, but there was no shortage of them in the region. It really would have just been coming along for the ride. Considering the cost/upkeep of a full blown carrier, there are cheaper more flexible options open to the RAN.
Originally posted by FredT
The problem would be the need for more than one. The carriers have to spend some time each year in port for maintanance and resupply. Not to mention that periodicaly they need a major overhaul. With just one carrier, it would be in port alot of the time reducing effective time it could be projecting power.
With China showing an increase in blue water activity and possibly deploying a carrier of its own, they may want a counterweight of sorts of thier own.
Originally posted by FredT
The problem would be the need for more than one. The carriers have to spend some time each year in port for maintanance and resupply. Not to mention that periodicaly they need a major overhaul. With just one carrier, it would be in port alot of the time reducing effective time it could be projecting power.
With China showing an increase in blue water activity and possibly deploying a carrier of its own, they may want a counterweight of sorts of thier own.
Originally posted by xpert11
The smart thing would be that the NZ would operate a flat top so the two ships could rotate for maintanance. However I think the NZ Navy would struggle to make up the numbers in terms of personal and the NZ government dosnt care much for defense.
Originally posted by xpert11
Another good reason the RAN should accuire a carrier. Im sure the yanks would lease us a carrier given all the support Aust has given to the war on terrorism.
Originally posted by xpert11
Wouldnt a carrier be useful in the pacfic given that many of the smaller nations are Vulnerable to terrorism.
no the carrier would belong the NZ navy and they would foot the bill for its upkeep.
Originally posted by FredT
Originally posted by xpert11
The smart thing would be that the NZ would operate a flat top so the two ships could rotate for maintanance. However I think the NZ Navy would struggle to make up the numbers in terms of personal and the NZ government dosnt care much for defense.
So Aus, foots the bill for NZ's defence? Kind of like our Canada eh
Originally posted by FredT
Funny I was just pondering that question last night. The big question is does Australia need to project force beyond the range of its airforce? Currently it doeas not. Carriers are a huge expense as well.
Originally posted by LordGoofus
See the thing with the Australian defence forces (or at least up untill the iraq screwup) is that their main purpose was for peacekeeping and some covert / behind the line ground based operations. As such our main requirement is highly trained soldiers, and not so much air force or navy. To my limited knowledge that's always how Australia has worked. We're a "grunt" based military, not air or naval.
So there really isn't a need for a huge big warship / aircraft carrier... although it would be amusing to pull up next to an illegal fishing boat in a "floating fortress".
Are you feeling lucky, punk?